Agenda item

17/08216/FUL Land North of 146, Upper Westwood BA15 2DE

Minutes:

Public Participation

George Mumford spoke in objection to the application

Chris Baines spoke in objection to the application

James Crawford spoke in objection to the application

Chris Beaver, Agent, spoke in support of the application.

Tim Leader, on behalf of Westwood Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application

 

Matthew Perks, Senior Planning Officer, introduced the application, which had been deferred at the last meeting for a member site visit, which took place on Monday 10 December 2018. The committee was informed that since the last meeting, the application had been materially revised which comprised the deletion of one of the proposed pods along with a reduced red lined site boundary plan with enhanced landscape planting proposals, the committee was presented with an updated report and list of planning conditions. Officers recommended the application for one self-contained camping pod with parking and change of use of land to leisure / tourism use be approved, subject to conditions. The committee was advised that following receipt of the revisions, a fresh consultation was completed lasting 10 days.  Members of the committee were advised that late representations had been received which were circulated to members of the committee on the day.

 

Key issues included; The principle of development, impacts on the Green Belt, Cotswolds AONB and special landscape, the impacts on the Conservation Area and neighbouring amenity; and highways impacts.

 

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Additional clarity was sought on whether the development comprised inappropriate development in the green belt, an appraisal of relevant case law and appeal decisions; and, the impacts of the additional vehicle movements.

 

In addition to responding to the matters raised, officers advised that only the site area outlined in red would be subject to the proposed change of use.

 

Members of the public, as detailed above, had the opportunity to speak on the application. 

 

Local Member, Councillor Johnny Kidney, spoke in objection to the development highlighting the sensitive nature of the site, the damage the development would have on the openness of the Green Belt and that the development was considered contrary to the NPPF and Core Policies 39, 51, 57 and the Cotswold AONB Management Plan.

 

A motion to refuse the application was moved by Councillor Trevor Carbin, which was seconded by Councillor Ernie Clark.

 

A debate followed where the following points of clarification were answered by officers: the relevance of the Cotswold AONB Management Plan, the current use of the land and what permission the land benefitted from.  There was also a discussion about the relevance of a recent decision to grant permission for a new car park at Dorothy House and the committee were informed of the very special circumstances that applied to that particular case.  Members were advised to appraise and weigh up the merits of the application and not be influenced by the determination of a separate application which did not share the planning description and was not in the same settlement or immediate locality.

 

At the end of the debate it was;

 

Resolved   

 

To refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

 

1.   The proposal, without very special circumstances, would constitute as inappropriate development in the Green Belt that would be harmful to its openness and detrimental to the special landscape character and quality of the surrounding landscape contrary to the 2018 NPPF - in particular paragraphs 143, 145, 170 and 172; and, policies CP39 and CP51 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy and the Cotswold AONB Management Plan (2018).

 

2 .  The proposed development would be detrimental to existing residential amenity by reason of increased noise, loss of privacy, general activity and vehicle movements contrary to CP57 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy.

 

Cllr Phil Alford entered the meeting at 15:55 and refrained from voting on the first application.

Supporting documents: